Gosh, Chris, I didnít know you were the chairman of the House Committee on
Homeland Security until I looked at the Wall Street Journalís editorial page
this morning to see how it would blame democracy for the defeat of Spainís
Prime Minister Aznarís political party after the Al Qaeda bombings in
Madrid.

Sure enough, there was the lead editorial "Terror and Democracy,"
complaining that Al Qaeda terrorized the Spanish voters into rebuking
Aznarís party: ďSo the terrorists will conclude that, with an investment
of only a dozen backpack bombs, they were able to rout a major power. They are
sure to try the same thing elsewhere in Europe, and almost certainly between
now and the November elections in the U.S. We doubt that an America that has
already endured 9/11 would react as the Spanish have, but now is the time for
President Bush to begin preparing the public for the worst.Ē

But there you were alongside the editorial in an op-ed: ďA Spanish
Surrender? A new terror tactic: Strike before an election and influence the
result.Ē Here is something of what you said:

Have terrorists succeeded in changing
the course of Spanish democracy?

The revelation that al Qaeda was likely behind the Madrid slaughter of
hundreds, just prior to Sunday's elections, is widely viewed as the reason
for the Socialists' upset victory. The result, it is said, reflects voter
backlash against Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's strong support for the
global war on terror.

If so, it also reflects terrorist backlash against Mr. Aznar's staunch
support for American efforts to destroy al Qaeda. "This is an answer to
your cooperation with the Bush criminals and their allies," was the
message on the purported al Qaeda video that blew open the Spanish
elections. "This is an answer to crimes that you committed in the
world, notably in Iraq and Afghanistan."

The Socialists' 11th-hour campaign theme, and the terrorists' rationale for
their bloody retribution, thus coincide. It was the Spanish government's
willingness to stand with America in taking the fight to the terrorists --
notably, according to the tape, in Afghanistan as well as Iraq -- that both
the Socialists and the terrorists claim made Prime Minister Aznar himself
culpable for the deaths of 200 of his countrymen.

Iím sorry Chris, but if democracy
means anything, it means that in elections held fair and square the best man
wins. Neither you nor the Journalís editors found it expedient to
mention that a year ago -- when Aznar joined President Bush in thumbing their
noses at the United Nations Security Council Ė public opinion polls showed
between 80% and 90% of the people of Spain disagreed with Aznarís alliance
with the U.S. warhawks, you included.

As I recall, there was not a single country in the democracies of Europe where
the national electorate sided with the need to go to war. If there are 6
billion people in the world, at least 5 billion saw no need to forcibly remove
a regime whose government was doing everything asked of it by the United
Nations. The Security Council would not back the White House because the
weapons inspectors had looked high and low and could not find any trace of a
weapon of mass destruction, even when they were given leads by the Pentagon on
where to look. Remember all that?

Democracy doesnít work too well when leaders are elected on one platform and
soon after decide to go in the opposite direction. President Bush had no
mandate from the voters to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein from power, but he
won popular support for that action after 9-11 when his team made the claims
that Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda and thus to 9-11, and that despite
what the UN inspectors found, Baghdad was sitting on an arsenal of WMD.
President Bush may have believed everything he said to justify the pre-emptive
war and may be able to persuade the U.S. electorate this year that it should
not count against him that the intelligence upon which he relied was in error.
If he does so, an ďOctober surpriseĒ by Al Qaeda would not contribute to
his defeat and might work in the other direction. In Spain, Prime Minister
Aznarís party had no mandate last year and there was never a good reason
Aznar presented on why he acted as he did against the weight of evidence. The
terrorists can never be justified for doing what they did, but the voters of
Spain were completely in their rights to do what they did.

If I were you, Chris, I would cut my ties to Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz
and Scooter Libby and the other neo-con intellectuals who cooked up this nice
little war to show the world the United States doesn't fool around. I'd feel
much more secure in my homeland if the chairman of the House committee on
Homeland Security had a greater appreciation of diplomacy than he has of war.